A Chicago man who spent 16 years in prison after being convicted of murder as a teenagerhas been awarded $25 million in damages after it was determined that he was wrongfully convicted.

 Thaddeus Jimenez, 32, had spent nearly half his life in prison before being exonerated and released in May 2009. After being released, Jimenez then sued the city, accusing the police of ignoring evidence in his case, including a confession from another suspect, Juan Carlos Torres.

Thaddeus Jimenez after his release from prison in 2009

Nonetheless, Jimenez was tried and convicted twice and sentenced to 45 years in prison. More from the Chicago Tribune:

Years later, lawyers and students from the Northwestern University Bluhm Center on Wrongful Convictions and other attorneys reinvestigated Jimenez’s conviction and found that two key witnesses recanted their original claims that he was the gunman. The state’s attorney’s office then agreed to reopen the case.

If the verdict stands, it will be one of the largest levied against Chicago in the city’s history.

“The state’s attorney’s office … recognized an injustice had occurred and they corrected it,” said Jimenez’s attorney Jon Loevy. “They deserve a ton of credit for reopening the case … taking an honest look at it and correcting an injustice.”

Jimenez is reportedly now working at a restaurant. “He’s trying to figure out what to do for the rest of his life,” Loevy said. However, last December, Jimenez was convicted on drug possession charges and could be headed back to prison for up to three years. He sentencing is scheduled for February 1, according to CBS News.

The U. S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibited law enforcement from using GPS devices to conduct surveillance on suspects without a warrant in the case, United States v. Jones.

The Jones case began in 2004. At that time, a federal and local law enforcement task force began investigating the defendant, a nightclub owner and operator, for alleged cocaine trafficking. As part of the investigation, the law enforcement officers attempted to locate co-conspirators’ drug stash locations by conducting traditional visual surveillance and installing a camera near the defendant’s nightclub.

The task force also covertly installed a GPS tracking device on a Jeep Grand Cherokee used by the defendant. Originally, the task force obtained a warrant to install the device, but installed the device one day after the expiration of the warrant. Using information obtained from the GPS device, the task force was able to locate the defendant, and obtain surveillance photographs and videos, at a suspected stash house in Maryland.

Later, based on intercepted phone calls, the task force determined that the defendant was going to receive a shipment of cocaine in October, 2005. The task force executed search warrants at various locations and recovered nearly $70,000 from the defendant’s Jeep, as well as a significant quantity of cocaine, thousands of dollars in cash, firearms, digital scales, and other drug paraphernalia. The defendant was charged respondent with conspiring to distribute cocaine and other charges. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

In order to understand Jones, it is necessary to start with two significant Supreme Court precedents based on very old technology: Katz v. United States and United States v. Knotts.

In Katz, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless wiretapping of conversations in a phone booth violates the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court shifted from the old property-based analysis of the Fourth Amendment to a privacy-based analysis. The Court explained that the Fourth Amendment would be implicated, and a warrant would be required, when the government violates an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Justice Harlan, concurring, famously explained that the relevant inquiry under the Fourth Amendment has two parts: first, whether the person has “an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy,” and second, whether the individual’s subjective expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’”

Knotts concerned the surveillance of a defendant who was suspected of manufacturing methamphetamine. Law enforcement installed a tracking device inside a five-gallon drum of chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. When the defendant purchased the drum of chemicals, the officers were able to follow his car with the help of a monitor that received the signals sent from the beeper.

Relying in part upon the information obtained through the use of the beeper, officers obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s cabin and discovered a drug laboratory and chemicals necessary for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment was not applicable to the use of a tracking device in this situation.

The Court reasoned that the defendant did not have a reasonable privacy interest in the movement of his vehicle on a public roadway. This is, the Court reasoned, because drivers voluntarily convey to any observer their location and direction of travel by traveling on public roads. In other words, people have no legitimate expectation of privacy in their location if they could lawfully be viewed by law enforcement, and the police are permitted to use technology, whether flashlights or tracking devices, to augment “the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth.”

Knotts explicitly left open a question addressed by Jones, whether the use of electronic tracking devices to conduct 24-hour surveillance without a warrant was permissible, suggesting that “different constitutional principles may be applicable” to “dragnet type law enforcement practices.” The Jones case came before the Supreme Court on a split in opinions by lower courts.

Many courts, relying on Knotts, had held that the warrantless use of GPS tracking devices was permissible because the GPS tracking devices merely recorded what law enforcement officers could observe through traditional visual surveillance.

However, other courts, including notably the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Jones (under the name United States v. Maynard), had declined to apply Knotts to GPS tracking devices. Instead, these court limited Knotts to holding that a person had no reasonable expectation of privacy where police use a tracking device to augment visual surveillance over a discrete and limited period of time, and that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of their movements over the course of a period of time.

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

In its decision, the Court held that the attachment and use of a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, requires a warrant.

The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia — joined by four other Justices — began by noting that the U.S. government had to occupy private property for the purpose of obtaining information. Scalia, thus, would apply traditional notions of trespass to determine whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. Scalia, thus, rejected the government’s argument that no search occurred under the Katz formulation because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the underbody of the Jeep where the device was attached and in the locations of the Jeep on the public roads, which were visible to all.

In doing so, the Court held that traditional notions of trespass could continue to govern Fourth Amendment cases on focused on the act of installing the tracking device: “Where, as here, the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search undoubtedly occurred.” Scalia distinguished Knotts on the grounds that the “beeper had been placed in the container before it came into Knotts‘ possession, with the consent of the then-owner.”

The opinion by Scalia declined to address the question of whether conducting the type of long-term surveillance enabled by GPS devices — if it could be achieved without a trespass — violated the Fourth Amendment. The concurrence by Justice Samuel Alito — joined by three other Justices — considered the question. Alito suggested that the short-term use of GPS devices may not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy, but “the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.” Alito’s view was based on the view that “law enforcement agents and others would not — and indeed, in the main, simply could not — secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in the majority opinion, but appeared to be very sympathetic to the view that a violation of the Fourth Amendment could be found using the Katz approach.

IMPLICATIONS

The Jones decision could be one of the more significant decisions of recent years because of its recognition of the role of changing technology. If future courts rely on Scalia’s trespass-based approach, the implications of Jones could be limited. However, there appears to be at least five votes in support of the view that the Fourth Amendment does not permit law enforcement to conduct surveillance beyond a targeted investigation into a certain crime without a warrant.

In this view, Jones may be considered the first of a series of cases where courts refuse to permit law enforcement to undertake surveillance of particular individuals over extended periods of time in the hope of piecing together evidence of illegal conduct, including evidence of illegal conduct that was not even suspected prior to the surveillance.

Joshua Engel is vice president and general counsel of the Lycurgus Group, based in Columbus, Ohio. He writes the Stockycat blog about technology and the Fourth Amendment.

From www.nbcnewyork.com By Jonathan Dienst, Joe Valiquette and Shimon Prokupecz, January 24, 2012

The FBI arrested three Connecticut police officers and one sergeant for allegedly mistreating Latino suspects and residents while on patrol, law-enforcement officials say.

Three East Haven police officers and the sergeant were taken into custody early Tuesday and are expected to be arraigned in federal court in Bridgeport on the civil rights-related charges later today, law enforcement officials said.

The East Haven Police Department is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department.

An indictment charges Dennis Spaulding, David Cari, Jason Zullo and Sgt. John Miller with conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights and obstruction for allegedly executing unreasonable searches and seizures, using unreasonable force and concealing their actions.

Prosecutors say the group of officers was known as “Miller’s boys” after the name of the sergeant charged in the indictment.

The group often worked the midnight shift.

Investigators say the officers are charged because they worked “to injure, oppress and intimidate various members of the East Haven community.”

Prosecutors say the officers denied Latino residents and their advocates the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not be arrested and detained without probable cause and to not be arrested on false and misleading evidence.

The officers also are accused of harassing and intimidating individuals, including advocates, witnesses and other officers who tried to investigate or report misconduct or abuse committed by the four officers.

Connecticut U.S. Attorney spokesman Tom Carson said a news conference would be held later Tuesday morning.

Donald Cretella, the lawyer for John Miller, said his client has been honored with awards and risked his life in shootouts.

“John Miller is a hero in East Haven,” he said. “He’s decorated. He’s a wonderful family man. Hopefully, we’ll clear his name.”

Frank Riccio Jr., Spaulding’s attorney, said his client is an exemplary police officer.

“At this early stage it’s our position Mr. Spaulding is not guilty of the charges. He’s been nothing but an exemplary police officer. That’s why this is shocking.”

The East Haven Police Department has been under scrutiny for months amid allegations some officers mistreat Latinos. Allegations of false arrests and bogus traffic stops are widespread.

The arrests of the law-enforcement officials come weeks after the Justice Department issued a report saying some members of the department intentionally targeted Latinos for enforcement and traffic stops, and that there may have been efforts to cover up the alleged misconduct.

The Justice Department also found “serious deficiencies” in how the department is managed, officials told NBC New York.

Rev. James Manship is among those who worked to document what he said was harassment of Latino businesses by police for no apparent reason. Manship was arrested and locked up while videotaping one arrest. He was later released.

The former chief of the East Haven Police has denied his department systematically engaged in any wrongdoing. But he acknowledged certain members of the department were being investigated.

The New York FBI joined in the investigation to avoid any appearance of a conflict by the FBI Connecticut, which works closely with local police departments. An FBI New York spokesman declined to comment.

There was no immediate comment from an East Haven police department spokesperson either.

East Haven Mayor Joseph Maturo said he backs the police.

“I stand behind the police department,” he said. “We have a great police department.”

Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy commented on the allegations of racial profiling last week saying, “As governor, I will continue to insist that every effort is taken to protect individual rights in every community, and that racial profiling is eliminated.”

Some residents and civil rights groups have held vigils and rallies to protest the alleged police misconduct. Previous news reports suggested as many as 15 officers were under scrutiny for alleged misconduct.

While most cops protect and serve, former East St. Louis Police Chief Michael Baxton apparently likes to play.

Michael Baxton

Baxton pleaded guilty Thursday to stealing four Xbox 360 consoles from the FBI, reports St. Louis news station KSDK.

 To be clear, the 360 is not standard issue equipment for the Feds these days. Officials had them in the car as part of a sting operation after suspicions arose about the chief’s conduct.

Baxton, who faces up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000, came under suspicion of offering preferential treatment to some suspects and stealing/selling items from the evidence locker. That’s when the FBI decided to test him.

Agents bought five Xbox 360s, put them in the trunk of a car, then reported the car as being stolen. Baxton and another officer responded to the call — and sure enough, when they saw the Xboxes, the chief ordered the officer to put four in his car and keep one for himself.

“Unbeknownst to Baxton, the unnamed officer voluntarily came forward to report other acts of misconduct occurring in Alorton and had been assisting the federal investigation from its inception. The unnamed officer was equipped with covert surveillance devices at the time of the theft — and he audio and video recorded the entire incident,” reads the court record.

Officials tracked one of the Xboxes and found it being used in Baxton’s basement. But the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case said Baxton lied and tried to frame another officer when confronted.

Baxton’s attorney calls the incident a “monumental lapse of judgment.”

Ironically, this isn’t the former chief’s first brush with the other side of the law. It turns out Baxton had two felony convictions from 1982 before he was appointed: one for theft and another for burglary. Those convictions were expunged in 1989.

The town really can’t catch a break when it comes to law enforcement officials. Baxton, after all, got the job of chief when the former chief was convicted of federal tax crimes.

Lancaster Co. Sheriff’s investigators say a 23-year-old woman was shot to death while her three children were at the family’s mobile home Thursday night in Lancaster.

When detectives arrived at a home on Roseanne Lane they found Jenika Jones dead on the couch.

 

One witness told police three people were seen running from the home where Jones had moved in just less than a month ago.

“We are actively pursuing leads in the case and the full extent of the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office investigative capability will be activated to help identify and bring to justice the violent person/persons responsible,” said Lancaster Sheriff Barry Faile.

Jones had three small children between the ages of one and five, and Jones’ aunt told NewsChannel 36 she does not know what will happen to the kids moving forward.

The neighbor told NewsChannel 36 Jones’ kids were playing outside just hours before the murder, and the child who came to the neighbor’s house was shaking, crying and saying, “help me, help me, take my mom to the hospital, take my mom to the hospital.”

Detectives are working to determine if the oldest kid may know the suspects.

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to call the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office at 704-283-4136.

SIMPSONVILLE, S.C. — Authorities say a South Carolina Highway Patrol trooper has been arrested after a standoff at his Simpsonville home.

 Greenville County sheriff’s deputies say they were called to a home at 5:30 p.m. Saturday because of a domestic disturbance.

A woman said she had been involved in a fight with her husband. Authorities said Robert Keith Owens had a gun and made threats to harm a family pet.

 The woman was able to escape safely. Authorities made contact with Owens, who came out of the home around three hours later and was arrested and charged with domestic violence.

 Department of Public Safety spokesman Sid Gaulden says Owens had been on medical leave for several months after he was injured while on duty. It wasn’t known if Owens has an attorney.

WASHINGTON — Two pro-business advocacy groups on Friday filed the first legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s recent recess appointments, asking a federal judge to find them unconstitutional.

The National Federation of Independent Business and the National Right to Work Foundation argue Obama cannot legally bypass the Senate to appoint three new members of the National Labor Relations Board, an agency that referees labor-management disputes.

The groups made the argument in a motion in federal district court in Washington, D.C., as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the labor board for requiring businesses to put up posters telling workers about their right to form a union.

The challenge came a day after the Justice Department issued a legal opinion defending the appointments of the labor board members, and the appointment of a national consumer watchdog, against Republican criticism.

Obama stoked controversy when he made the appointments Jan. 4 during the Senate’s current 20-day recess. Republicans leaders have called it an unusual and unconstitutional power grab, saying the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted.

Neither the White House nor the NLRB had any immediate comment on the motion. But in the legal opinion released Thursday, the Justice Department argued the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted.

The department said the pro forma sessions — some with as few as one member present — have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations.

Administration officials have said Obama made the appointments because Senate Republicans have been unfairly blocking Senate confirmation of nominees as a way to limit the power of agencies they oppose.

The NLRB is supposed to have five members, but it was down to only two until Obama acted. The agency is not allowed to conduct regular business with only two members.

On Jan. 4, Obama appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the five-member NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Obama also appointed Richard Cordray, a former attorney general of Ohio, to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In legal documents filed Friday, the pro-business groups argue the three new NLRB members are not legitimate because the U.S. Senate was still in session when they were appointed. The arguments come just days after NLRB lawyers officially notified the court that Obama’s recess appointees were now parties in the ongoing legal dispute.

In their lawsuit, the groups question the legality of an NLRB rule approved last year. The board wants most businesses to display posters explaining the right to bargain collectively, distribute union literature and engage in other union activities without reprisal.

The rule has met with stiff resistance from business groups who call the language too one-sided in favor of unions.

“The rule can’t be implemented and enforced without a functioning board,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We believe the validity of these appointments is in question.”

By www.ten8.wordpress.com

Grassfire Nation, a division of Grassroots Action, Inc., is a million-strong network of grassroots conservatives is asking for help in assisting “America’s Toughest Sheriff”.

Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his Deputies, and staff are being victimized by Barack Obama and his “lap-dog” Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) in what can only be described as a politically motivated assault.

Why would someone, anyone, want to destroy the reputation of a committed public servant who by all accounts is doing his job in spectacular fashion?

Because while performing his state-appointed duties to confirm the eligibility of ALL presidential candidates seeking to be on the ballot, in early December 2011, Sheriff Joe Arpaio publicly announced that his team’s findings on Barack Obama’s eligibility would be “controversial!”

Soon after his bold announcement, the Obama Administration’s bullies at the DOJ descended on Maricopa County to investigate Sheriff Arpaio’s law enforcement practices… alleging several forms of discrimination and abuse.

The DOJ went as far as to summarily STRIP officers within the department of their federal immigration authority — meaning THEY CANNOT ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS!

You heard that right …

On December 21, 2011, ninety-two Maricopa County Detention Officers were forced to lay down their Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) federal badges.

This is utterly outrageous. Obama and his cronies must be challenged for creating a national security risk — a risk that impacts us all!

Go here now to stand with Sheriff Joe and against Obama’s jack-booted intimidation tactics:

http://www.grassfire.com/196/petition.asp

Leftist feeding Frenzy Against Sheriff Joe, and it is working!

Now, the Obama-controlled media and other far-left organizations are also piling on – disseminating a character mugging on Sheriff Joe in a blatant malevolent campaign against the ultra-Conservative Sheriff.

Grassfire Nation finds this baseless, politically motivated DOJ attack on Sheriff Joe to be reprehensible, and is mobilizing a strong grassroots response to counter this effort through their “Support Sheriff Joe” letter initiative.

In a massive show of grassroots support, Grassfire will hand-deliver letters from citizens across the nation to Sheriff Arpaio, The Department of Justice and key members of the U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committees demanding an end to the Obama/Holder witch-hunt.

Click here now to express your support for Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the work of his department – and to denounce the yet, unproven allegations by Eric Holder’s Department of Justice!

http://www.grassfire.com/196/petition.asp

With Obama posturing for the Hispanic vote, this attack against Sheriff Joe couldn’t be more convenient.

Even though Arpaio has agreed to work with the DOJ to resolve any issues of merit, they have yet to offer specifics verifying the basis of their allegations…

That’s because this is not about right and wrong. This is a politically motivated attack designed to shakedown and destroy a conservative lawmaker who is relentless in his pursuit of law enforcement.

Step up right now and join the thousands of Americans from all across the nation who are standing up to Obama’s tactics by adding their names to our statement of support for Sheriff Joe.

Go here now to have your petition hand-delivered by Grassfire Nation:

http://www.grassfire.com/196/petition.asp

Due to the liberal media’s constant drumbeat against Arpaio, he has received death threats and been targeted by leftist hate groups. Yet, Sheriff Joe is still standing his ground – and seeking reelection to his post!

Property owners in Dunbar Borough will not see a tax increase for 2012.

Council members adopted a $352,184 final budget Monday night that holds the line on real estate taxes at 1.665 mills.

Taxpayers will pay $1.66 to the borough for each $1,000 of assessed valuation. This means a property owner whose home is valued at $50,000 would pay $83 a year in real estate taxes to the borough.

Council members Jason Bartholomai and John Maddas abstained from voting while the five other members voted to approve the spending plan.

Bartholomai said he abstained because he didn’t have an opportunity to review the budget; Maddas said he was in the hospital when council reviewed the tentative budget and did not have a chance to see it.

Real estate taxes generate an estimated $38,000 in revenue for the borough. Each mill brings in about $23,000, according to borough secretary Tammy Nedrow.

The budget includes money for paving roads, replacing storm drains, purchasing the post office building and a new dump truck. The budget earmarks additional funding for increasing the hours of the borough’s only police officer, Jamie Speelman, or hiring another police officer.

Speelman works about 35 to 38 hours a week. Council is considering increasing her hours as a way of providing more coverage in 2012.

An estimated $14,000 was included in this year’s budget for the police department, but the amount will be increased to approximately $30,000 in the 2012 spending plan.

The proposed budget includes money for the borough to purchase the post office building, which was constructed in 1982. The borough has a lease agreement with private owners and the option to purchase the post office building after 30 years. The 30-year time period will end in March. Borough solicitor Tim Witt is negotiating an agreement with the owners.

In other business, Councilman Norm Gordon said “Christmas in the Park” was a huge success.

“I was very impressed with the volunteerism in our community,” Gordon told council members. “We had at least 75 kids at the event. The kids did have a blast. We served hot dogs, buns and all of the trimmings. The kids rode the train to Connellsville with Santa. The event didn’t cost the borough a dime, and we made lasting memories for those kids.”

Aspinwall police say a looming layoff of one of its six full-time officers is one of the sticking points in negotiations for a new police labor contract.

The contract expired Dec. 31, but has been extended until the end of January as the two sides try to reach an agreement.

Last month, borough council approved a $1.93 million borough budget for 2012 with properly tax rate hike but eliminates one full-time police officer’s position.

According to the budget, cutting the full-time position would save the borough about $61,000.

“According to our contract, five other part-time officers would have to be laid-off before a full-timer is laid off,” said Shawn McMinn, an Aspinwall police officer who is on the negotiating team.

“We’re concerned about losing an officer, officer safety and increased crime,” McMinn said.

New council President Mark Ellermeyer said any concerns about shift coverage are invalid. at least until a new contract is signed.

Ellermeyer said that the borough doesn’t intend to lay off any officers during the negotiation period.

“I am looking forward to meeting with Officer McMinn and Sgt. Peterson,” he said. “Hopefully, this fresh start will yield an agreement.”

It’s common for police labor contracts to call for the layoff of part-time officers before cutting full-time police positions, according to Henry Wiehagen, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, or FOP, in Pittsburgh, Lodge 91, and a former chief of police in Braddock.

The attorney for the FOP, Ron Koerner, added: “We also encourage police departments to get this kind of a clause in the contract because it protects the full-time officers. We’re not trying to harm part-timers. The clause is not universal by any means.”

Most municipalities don’t challenge the provision for laying off part-timers first if it’s in the labor contracts, Wiehagen said.

But a municipality wanting to keep its part-time officers, who are also represented by the FOP, isn’t unusual, either.

“A lot bring in part-timers because their budgets can’t afford the full-timers,” Wiehagen said, adding, “A part-time officer is just an officer waiting to get hired full time.”

Aspinwall police are among the FOPs 2,000 members from 127 municipalities plus officers from Allegheny County public safety departments.

Although a member of FOP, Aspinwall police are independently representing themselves during the contract negotiations.